WASHINGTON -- National landmarks such as the Washington Monument, Ellis Island and the Gateway Arch in St. Louis could be shut down.

Planes could be grounded, trains could stop running, and bridges and tunnels could be closed. U.S. borders might be sealed off, and roadblocks might be set up on interstates and other major highways.

The United States is prepared to go into lockdown mode if the government should raise the nation's terror alert to Code Red, the highest threat level for terrorism. Code Red means there is a severe risk of terrorist attack, or that an attack is imminent or may already be under way.

"It essentially means you stop doing everything except protecting yourself, " said Dave McIntyre, deputy director of the Anser Institute for Homeland Security, a nonprofit research group in Arlington, Va.

Homeland security officials have put Americans on notice to brace for the possibility of terrorist attacks while the country is at war with Iraq. The threat level was raised to orange, the second highest, just two days before the war began March 19.

"There are no plans, nor have their been any discussions, about elevating the threat level to Code Red, " said Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security.

To trigger such an alert, U.S. intelligence would have to be "very specific, credible, corroborated [and] provide us with information such as time, date, location" of a possible attack, Johndroe said.

Still, federal, state and local officials across the country are going over emergency plans to be prepared in the event that the terror level should be raised to red.

Homeland security officials have been vague about what protective measures might be taken under Code Red.

But Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge has said such measures might be similar to those put in place Sept. 11, 2001, which means planes could be grounded, borders closed, government buildings shut down and road and rail traffic curtailed.

The specific response would depend on the nature of the threat.

It's doubtful that the entire country would be placed under a Code Red alert, McIntyre said. A more realistic scenario is that a red alert would result from a specific threat to a particular region or industry.

If, for example, there were a terrorist threat against the trucking industry in the Southeast, truck traffic might be temporarily halted in that region but be allowed to continue elsewhere, McIntyre said.

Code Red wouldn't mean automatic closure of the Washington Monument and other national landmarks. But superintendents at national parks have been advised that shutting down the facilities is an option at their discretion, said David Barna, a spokesman for the National Park Service.

Security was tightened at eight high-profile landmarks, including the Washington Monument, the Liberty Bell pavilion and the Statue of Liberty, after Sept. 11 because they are symbols of democracy and are thus potential terrorist targets, Barna said.

Visitors at those landmarks now face airport-security type measures, such as metal detectors, bag searches and checks for explosive devices. Patrols also have been stepped up since the terror alert was raised to orange.

But Barna said the landmarks would remain open if possible because they are places of solace that should be available to the public in times of war.

A Code Red alert also serves as an advisory to state and local officials, who then must decide whether to put in place protective measures. Emergency plans will vary with each community, but might include calling up the National Guard, closing government buildings and shutting down key roads and bridges.

Some schools have plans to lock down their facilities during Code Red and already have begun advising parents not to rush to pick up their children.

Residents would be advised to stay away from gathering places, such as sporting events, and listen to the radio or television for instructions. They should be prepared to leave if necessary, but should remain in their homes or offices until they are instructed to leave, McIntyre said.

"The worst thing you can do is to flee without reason, " which could create gridlock on the streets and keep emergency vehicles from getting through, he said.

Emergency measures taken under Code Red would be expensive and aren't intended to remain in effect for extended periods, McIntyre said.

The following =Executive Orders=, now recorded in the Federal Register, and therefore accepted by Congress as the law of the land, can be put into effect at any time an emergency is declared:

10995--All communications media seized by the Federal Government.10997--Seizure of all electrical power, fuels, including gasoline and minerals.10998--Seizure of all food resources, farms and farm equipment.10999--Seizure of all kinds of transportation, including your personal car, and control of all highways and seaports.11000--Seizure of all civilians for work under Federal supervision.11001--Federal takeover of all health, education and welfare.11002--Postmaster General empowered to register every man, woman and child in the U.S.A.11003--Seizure of all aircraft and airports by the Federal Government.11004--Housing and Finance authority may shift population from one locality to another. Complete integration.11005--Seizure of railroads, inland waterways, and storage facilities.11051--The Director of the Office of Emergency Planning authorized to put Executive Orders into effect in "times of increased international tension or financial crisis". He is also to perform such additional functions as the President may direct.-----

E. O. 11490 is a compilation of some 23 previous Executive Orders, signed by Nixon on Oct. 28, 1969, and outlining emergency functions which are to be performed by some 28 Executive Departments and Agencies whenever the President of the United States declares a national emergency (as in defiance of an impeachment edict, for example). Under the terms of E. O. 11490, the President can declare that a national emergency exists and the Executive Branch can:

* Take over all communications media* Seize all sources of power* Take charge of all food resources* Control all highways and seaports* Seize all railroads, inland waterways, airports, storage facilities* Commandeer all civilians to work under federal supervision* Control all activities relating to health, education, and welfare* Shift any segment of the population from one locality to another* Take over farms, ranches, timberized properties* Regulate the amount of your own money you may withdraw from your bank, or savings and loan institution

All of these and many more items are listed in 32 pages incorporating nearly 200,000 words, providing and absolute bureaucratic dictatorship whenever the President gives the word.

--&gt; Executive Order 11647 provides the regional and local mechanisms and manpower for carrying out the provisions of E. O. 11490.--&gt; Signed by Richard Nixon on Feb. 10, 1972, this Order sets up Ten Federal Regional Councils to govern Ten Federal Regions made upof the fifty still existing States of the Union.

Buried amongst the untold affronts to the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and the very spirit of America, the torture bill contains a definition of "wrongfully aiding the enemy" which labels all American citizens who breach their "allegiance" to President Bush and the actions of his government as terrorists subject to possible arrest, torture and conviction in front of a military tribunal.

1- 8 The General Assembly finds that while prisoners condemned to 1- 9 death may wish to donate one or more of their organs for 1-10 transplant, any such desire is thwarted by the fact that 1-11 electrocution makes all such organs unsuitable for 1-12 transplant. The intent of the General Assembly in enacting 1-13 this legislation is to provide for a method of execution 1-14 which is compatible with the donation of organs by a 1-15 condemned prisoner.

SECTION 2.

1-16 Article 2 of Chapter 10 of Title 17 of the Official Code of 1-17 Georgia Annotated, relating to the death penalty generally, 1-18 is amended by striking in its entirety Code Section 1-19 17-10-38, relating to death sentences generally, and 1-20 inserting in lieu thereof the following:

1-21 "17-10-38. (Index)

1-22 (a) All persons who have been convicted of a capital 1-23 offense and have had imposed upon them a sentence of death 1-24 shall, at the election of the condemned, suffer such 1-25 punishment either by electrocution or by guillotine. If 1-26 the condemned fails to make an election by the thirtieth 1-27 day preceding the date scheduled for execution, punishment 1-28 shall be by electrocution.

1-29 (b) In all cases in which the defendant is sentenced to be 1-30 electrocuted executed, it shall be the duty of the trial 1-31 judge in passing sentence to direct that the defendant be

-1- (Index)

LC 21 3643

2- 1 delivered to the Department of Corrections for 2- 2 electrocution execution at a state correctional 2- 3 institution designated by the department.

SECTION 3.

2- 4 Said article is further amended by striking in its entirety 2- 5 Code Section 17-10-44, relating to death chamber apparatus 2- 6 and related matters, and inserting in lieu thereof the 2- 7 following:

2- 8 "17-10-44. (Index)

2- 9 The Department of Corrections shall provide a death 2-10 chamber and all necessary apparatus, machinery, and 2-11 appliances for inflicting the penalty of death by 2-12 electrocution or by guillotine."

These are grim days for the Constitution. The House and the Senate have passed the catastrophic "compromise" negotiated by senators McCain &amp; Co. to the President's "enemy combatants" bill. The only thing compromised is the rule of law; the bill still strips detainees of the right to appeal, broadens the President's unilateral powers to decide who is an enemy and which interrogation methods violate the Geneva Conventions, and fatally undermines the War Crimes Act. The bill was rushed to passage just days after the Canadian government exonerated Maher Arar, "rendered" by the United States to Syria, imprisoned and tortured for nearly a year.

Did John McCain and his GOP colleagues cave? Yes. In particular, they betrayed the courageous military officers and Pentagon lawyers who for months fought for the rule of law. But the refusal of many Democrats to confront this constitutional crisis is more scandalous. For weeks Harry Reid and other Democratic leaders enjoyed the luxury of sitting on their hands while McCain and other Republicans publicly bucked the White House. But when vigorous Democratic opposition might have slowed the bill until a saner, less politicized moment after the election-season recess, a tepid Senator Reid refused to stand in its way: "We want to do this. And we want to do it in compliance with the direction from the Supreme Court. We want to do it in compliance with the Constitution." Never mind that the whole bill is out of compliance.

As more than 300 law professors wrote in a letter to Congressional leaders, the enemy-combatants debate is "an urgent test of our nation's constitutional and democratic values." Democrats as well as Republicans have failed the test.

NEW YORK -- Citing national security, a government lawyer told a federal appeals court Monday that the CIA should not be forced to reveal whether it has been given authority to detain and interrogate suspected terrorists in overseas jails.

The American Civil Liberties Union has asked the spy agency to turn over any documents related to secret foreign prisons. Though such prisons have been detailed in news reports, U.S. officials have never said that they exist.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Peter M. Skinner urged the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold a lower court holding that the CIA can refuse to respond to a Freedom of Information Act request by the ACLU.

He acknowledged that the CIA has the authority to assist foreign governments in the capture, detention and interrogation of terrorists, but said it cannot be forced to tell whether it is also doing so independently.

In written arguments, he said responding to the ACLU's request could cause serious damage to national security by giving enemies information about specific intelligence methods and activities used by the CIA.

The appeals court did not immediately rule on the matter and invited both sides to submit more information.

Megan Lewis, a Newark, N.J., lawyer arguing for the ACLU, told the court the CIA should not be permitted to evade public debate over its tactics by refusing to answer basic questions.

The ACLU is seeking two specific documents referenced in media reports: A Department of Justice memorandum specifying interrogation methods the CIA may use against top al-Qaida members, and a directive signed by President Bush letting the CIA set up detention facilities outside the United States.

In October 2003, the ACLU brought a lawsuit to probe treatment of detainees in U.S. custody, any deaths that occurred, and the transfer of detainees to countries known to use torture.

A diabolical plot has been uncovered to severely damage America's once-proud image as a global superpower that is also a beacon of civility and humanity.

And it looks like our best (and maybe only) chance for halting the damage-doers before they shatter what is left of America's global image is to hope that the nation's most patriotic conservative hard-liners will be so outraged that they will rush into battle.

These conservatives are our best hope because the leaders of the damage-doers are their ideological kin -- a trio that has apparently confused being hard-line with being hardheaded: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the men he works for, President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

The Los Angeles Times reported this week that the Defense Department has decided that the new edition of the [b:5d70759ec3]U.S. Army Field Manual detainee policies will no longer contain a key passage that adheres to the Geneva Conventions' ban on "humiliating and degrading treatment." The newspaper attributed its report to "knowledgeable military officials" and noted that omitting the Geneva protections was "a step that would mark a further, potentially permanent, shift away from strict adherence to international human-rights standards."

The Pentagon decision must be put into the context of our times. Since 1949, the United States and all other law-respecting countries abided by a set of basic standards in the Geneva Conventions for the humane treatment of prisoners of war and other detainees. The Geneva provisions ban torture and cruel treatment of prisoners of war. Article 3 goes further by banning "humiliating and degrading treatment" of all who are detained as unlawful combatants in addition to military personnel who are in the traditional category of prisoners of war. These conventions were adhered to by Republican and Democratic presidents. Through times that were tough, tortuous and threatening, the Geneva standards were the law that applied to all.

That was then; this is now: After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Bush suspended portions of the Geneva Conventions for detainees suspected of being members of al Qaeda and the Taliban. Then came those photos from inside the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq -- U.S. troops degrading prisoners by stripping them naked and piling them on top of each other, putting them on leashes held by a female guard, and so on. The world recoiled in revulsion. Now there are increasingly incriminating reports of a massacre of men, women and children in Haditha. And that ghastly specter, which could be partly attributed to troops who snapped under combat stress, is followed by further revelations that cannot be dismissed: an apparent systematic cover-up by officials who were not in the combat, but well up in the chain of command.

Now this: In April, the Pentagon was supposed to publish its new Army Field Manual that omitted the Geneva provisions. But State Department officials objected strongly, according to the Times.

The Bush administration's intramural controversy is apparently being appealed to the White House, even as we speak. You will not be shocked to know that Cheney has weighed in, backing the Pentagon version that omits the standards.

The Bush White House is not a place where voices of liberals or middle-roaders resonate. But conservative voices seem to carry well inside the chambers and corridors of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Now and then the clout and counsel of conservatives outside the administration have been known to influence policy.

Washington's most patriotic and hard-line conservatives in Congress and in the think tanks know well that the biggest war we have to fear is a world war where the epic battle is about hearts and minds. Bush knows this because he created a new top State Department office for public diplomacy and installed his friend Karen Hughes to run it. Now, if the Pentagon manual is printed without the Geneva standards, it will cause so much global damage to America's image -- on top of all the rest that has gone down -- that the president might as well tell Hughes to go home to Texas because hers will become a battle that cannot be won.

Conservative hard-liners, being patriots, remember the decades of pride when America was viewed globally as being a superpower that was on the side of civility and humanity. They need to speak up forcefully -- now! -- to save the president from the hardheadedness that has undone so much of what was once so good about America's image abroad.

In a stealth maneuver, President Bush has signed into law a provision which, according to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), will actually encourage the President to declare federal martial law (1). It does so by revising the Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions.

Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder."

President Bush seized this unprecedented power on the very same day that he signed the equally odious Military Commissions Act of 2006. In a sense, the two laws complement one another. One allows for torture and detention abroad, while the other seeks to enforce acquiescence at home, preparing to order the military onto the streets of America. Remember, the term for putting an area under military law enforcement control is precise; the term is "martial law."

Section 1076 of the massive Authorization Act, which grants the Pentagon another $500-plus-billion for its ill-advised adventures, is entitled, "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies." Section 333, "Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law" states that "the President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of ("refuse" or "fail" in) maintaining public order, "in order to suppress, in any State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy."

For the current President, "enforcement of the laws to restore public order" means to commandeer guardsmen from any state, over the objections of local governmental, military and local police entities; ship them off to another state; conscrïpt them in a law enforcement mode; and set them loose against "disorderly" citizenry - protesters, possibly, or those who object to forced vaccinations and quarantines in the event of a bio-terror event.

The law also facilitates militarized police round-ups and detention of protesters, so called "illegal aliens," "potential terrorists" and other "undesirables" for detention in facilities already contracted for and under construction by Halliburton. That's right. Under the cover of a trumped-up "immigration emergency" and the frenzied militarization of the southern border, detention camps are being constructed right under our noses, camps designed for anyone who resists the foreign and domestic agenda of the Bush administration.

An article on "recent contract awards" in a recent issue of the slick, insider "Journal of Counterterrorism &amp; Homeland Security International" reported that "global engineering and technical services powerhouse KBR [Kellog, Brown & Root] announced in January 2006 that its Government and Infrastructure division was awarded an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract to support U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities in the event of an emergency." "With a maximum total value of $385 million over a five year term," the report notes, "the contract is to be executed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers," "for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to augment existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) - in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs." The report points out that "KBR is the engineering and construction subsidiary of Halliburton." (3) So, in addition to authorizing another $532.8 billion for the Pentagon, including a $70-billion "supplemental provision" which covers the cost of the ongoing, mad military maneuvers in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places, the new law, signed by the president in a private White House ceremony, further collapses the historic divide between the police and the military: a tell-tale sign of a rapidly consolidating police state in America, all accomplished amidst ongoing U.S. imperial pretensions of global domination, sold to an "emergency managed" and seemingly willfully gullible public as a "global war on terrorism."

Make no mistake about it: the de-facto repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) is an ominous assault on American democratic tradition and jurisprudence. The 1878 Act, which reads, "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both," is the only U.S. criminal statute that outlaws military operations directed against the American people under the cover of 'lawenforcement.' As such, it has been the best protection we've had against the power-hungry intentions of an unscrupulous and reckless executive, an executive intent on using force to enforce its will.

Unfortunately, this past week, the president dealt posse comitatus, along with American democracy, a near fatal blow. Consequently, it will take an aroused citizenry to undo the damage wrought by this horrendous act, part and parcel, as we have seen, of a long train of abuses and outrages perpetrated by this authoritarian administration.

Despite the unprecedented and shocking nature of this act, there has been no outcry in the American media, and little reaction from our elected officials in Congress. On September 19th, a lone Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) noted that 2007\'s Defense Authorization Act contained a "widely opposed provision to allow the President more control over the National Guard [adopting] changes to the Insurrection Act, which will make it easier for this or any future President to use the military to restore domestic order WITHOUT the consent of the nation's governors."

Senator Leahy went on to stress that, "we certainly do not need to make it easier for Presidents to declare martial law. Invoking the Insurrection Act and using the military for law enforcement activities goes against some of the central tenets of our democracy. One can easily envision governors and mayors in charge of an emergency having to constantly look over their shoulders while someone who has never visited their communities gives the orders."

A few weeks later, on the 29th of September, Leahy entered into the Congressional Record that he had "grave reservations about certain provisions of the fiscal Year 2007 Defense Authorization Bill Conference Report," the language of which, he said, "subverts solid, longstanding posse comitatus statutes that limit the military's involvement in law enforcement, thereby making it easier for the President to declare martial law." This had been "slipped in," Leahy said, "as a rider with little study," while "other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals."

In a telling bit of understatement, the Senator from Vermont noted that "the implications of changing the (Posse Comitatus) Act are enormous". "There is good reason," he said, "for the constructive friction in existing law when it comes to martial law declarations. Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy. We fail our Constitution, neglecting the rights of the States, when we make it easier for the President to declare martial law and trample on local and state sovereignty."

Senator Leahy's final ruminations: "Since hearing word a couple of weeks ago that this outcome was likely, I have wondered how Congress could have gotten to this point. It seems the changes to the Insurrection Act have survived the Conference because the Pentagon and the White House want it."

The historic and ominous re-writing of the Insurrection Act, accomplished in the dead of night, which gives Bush the legal authority to declare martial law, is now an accomplished fact.

The Pentagon, as one might expect, plays an even more direct role in martial law operations. Title XIV of the new law, entitled, "Homeland Defense Technology Transfer Legislative Provisions," authorizes "the Secretary of Defense to create a Homeland Defense Technology Transfer Consortium to improve the effectiveness of the Department of Defense (DOD) processes for identifying and deploying relevant DOD technology to federal, State, and local first responders."

In other words, the law facilitates the "transfer" of the newest in so-called "crowd control" technology and other weaponry designed to suppress dissent from the Pentagon to local militarized police units. The new law builds on and further codifies earlier "technology transfer" agreements, specifically the 1995 DOD-Justice Department memorandum of agreement achieved back during the Clinton-Reno regime.(4)

It has become clear in recent months that a critical mass of the American people have seen through the lies of the Bush administration; with the president's polls at an historic low, growing resistance to the war Iraq, and the Democrats likely to take back the Congress in mid-term elections, the Bush administration is on the ropes. And so it is particularly worrying that President Bush has seen fit, at this juncture to, in effect, declare himself dictator.

This only applies to those Useful Idiots (TM) sheeple who believe everything Zionist Media Brainwashes them with.

If this law comes into effect, ALL AMERICANS beginning Jan 14, 2007 -- That's next year, in 2 months or so -- will have their freedom of movement taken away (as if it's not already severely limited).

Read below for more info:

Think about the ramifications...

They are treating us like sheep, herding us up, readying for the slaughter....

We're All Prisoners,

Now: US Citizens to be Required ''Clearance'' to Leave USA International Politics October 26, 2006 Forget no-fly lists.

If Uncle Sam gets its way, beginning on Jan. 14, 2007, we'll all be on no-fly lists, unless the government gives us permission to leave-or re-enter-the United States.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (HSA) has proposed that all airlines, cruise lines-even fishing boats-be required to obtain clearance for each passenger they propose taking into or out of the United States.

It doesn't matter if you have a U.S. Passport - a "travel document" that now, absent a court order to the contrary, gives you a virtually unqualified right to enter or leave the United States, any time you want.

When the DHS system comes into effect next January, if the agency says "no" to a clearance request, or doesn't answer the request at all, you won't be permitted to enter-or leave-the United States.

Consider what might happen if you're a U.S. passport holder on assignment in a country like Saudi Arabia. Your visa is about to expire, so you board your flight back to the United States.

But wait! You can't get on, because you don\'t have permission from the HSA. Saudi immigration officials are on hand to escort you to a squalid detention center, where you and others who are now effectively "stateless persons" are detained, potentially indefinitely, until their immigration status is sorted out.

Why might the HSA deny you permission to leave-or enter-the United States?

No one knows, because the entire clearance procedure would be an administrative determination made secretly, with no right of appeal.

Naturally, the decision would be made without a warrant, without probable cause and without even any particular degree of suspicion.

Basically, if the HSA decides it doesn't like you, you're a prisoner - either outside, or inside, the United States, whether or not you hold a U.S. passport.

The U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized there is a constitutional right to travel internationally. Indeed, it has declared that the right to travel is "a virtually unconditional personal right." The United States has also signed treaties guaranteeing "freedom of travel."

So if these regulations do go into effect, you can expect a lengthy court battle, both nationally and internationally.

Think this can't happen? Think again.

It's ALREADY happening.

Earlier this year, HSA forbade airlines from transporting an 18-year-old a native-born U.S. citizen, back to the United States. The prohibition lasted nearly six months until it was finally lifted a few weeks ago.

Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union are two countries in recent history that didn't allow their citizens to travel abroad without permission.

If these regulations go into effect, you can add the United States to this list. For more information on this proposed regulation, see http:// hasbrouck.org/IDP/IDP-APIS-comments.pdf.

BEWARE: GEORGE BUSH'S SECRET AGENTS CAN NOW ARREST US IN OUR OWN COUNTRY

By Alun Jones QC, lawyer of the NatWest Three Last updated at 21:42pm on 11th November 2006

The Government last week cravenly surrendered control of the independence of our criminal justice system to the United States.

It rejected a final chance to make two key amendments to the Extradition Act 2003 - a dereliction of duty that means American secret agents can now arrest us in our own country.

Extradition used to be about fugitives. People committed a crime in country A and fled to country B to avoid justice.

Obviously, as crime became transnational, complications arose. More than one country had a legal right to try a suspect.

Also, the international community created through the UN the concept of "international crimes" so grave that any country had the duty to prosecute or extradite any person accused of torture, hostage-taking, hijacking etc, found within its territory.

On the whole, countries respected the practice that crimes were normally tried in the country where the evidence was found, or the damage caused. The "War Against Terror" and the US reaction to financial scandals such as Enron and Worldcom changed all that.

The US now regards itself as free to request the extradition of UK citizens whose alleged crimes, in any traditional view, would be investigated here, and tried here if the evidence justified it.

I regularly meet US and Continental criminal lawyers. It is a shaming experience. They treat our subservience to the US with incredulity and even derision.

I now regularly advise businessmen and industrialists fearful they might be the subject of extradition requests.

One of these men is accused in the US of a transnational case of fraud in which the US attorney is threatening him, through his UK solicitor, that unless he returns voluntarily to the US and pleads guilty, in which case he will receive two years\' imprisonment without parole, he will be the subject of an extradition request and 'all bets will be off'.

We should not be too prissy. We would not be offended, necessarily, if a US prosecutor treated a US fugitive like this.

But this man is English - he is accused of criminal conduct committed in substance in the UK, where no one has sought to prosecute him even though the US allegations have been made public. There are other predictable and disturbing developments.

Three weeks ago, a foreign businessman, resident with his family for several years in England, was arrested on an extradition warrant alleging conspiracy to export night-vision goggles from the US to a Middle Eastern Muslim country.

The US prosecutor's brief descrïption of his conduct shows that the entire case arises out of a "sting" perpetrated by the US Department of Homeland Security.

Evidence was obtained, in London, by US undercover agents, audio-taping and videotaping conversations with the accused man.

The sting, of course, is standard US practice. In English law, the US investigators are guilty of the criminal offence of incitement committed in London.

The American extradition statement does not disclose whether the UK authorities knew about this (in which case they too would be guilty) or whether (the outrageous alternative) US agents are running amok in London on frolics of their own, and then demanding extradition.

The much-publicised case of the NatWest Three is the clearest example of America's prosecutorial arrogance.

The US claimed jurisdiction over this case because seven 'wire transfers' were made between Texas and London in the disputed transaction.

Any single electronic communication over a state or national border in the US entitles a US court to claim the right to try a person for an alleged fraud committed anywhere in the world.

Why does our law permit this?

In March 2003 David Blunkett signed a treaty concluded in secret with the US in which he gratuitously threw away UK citizens\' rights.

He allowed that, while it would be necessary for us to provide evidence showing a person should be extradited from the US, the US did not need to do the same to secure extradition from the UK.

He then put through Parliament the Bill that became the new Extradition Act 2003 later in the year.

The Government misled Parliament blatantly in 2003.

This Act allowed the Home Secretary to designate countries that did not have to provide evidence and so Blunkett designated America.

The Act itself contains some apparently strong safeguards for British citizens - or so Blunkett said. One is that a person shall not be extradited if to do so would be "incompatible with his human rights".

The most obvious safeguard for a UK citizen would appear to be Article eight of the European Convention. A person is entitled to the privacy of his home and family life.

There shall be no interference with this right unless it is necessary for, among other purposes, the prevention of crime.

So far, so good. The NatWest Three argued that it was not "necessary" to interfere with their right, as the Serious Fraud Office had decided not to prosecute here, and their employer did not claim to have been defrauded.

But in the High Court, the Attorney General contradicted the assurances given to Parliament.

He said that such was the importance of extradition in itself as a means of combating crime, it would always 'trump' the right to home and family life. The High Court effectively accepted this argument.

BUT the truth is that if the American prosecutors want to prosecute a UK citizen for a fraud committed mostly in the UK, they can get him by producing a piece of paper with a bare allegation of misconduct.

The courts and government cannot protect him even if he has been investigated and exonerated here. This has caused consternation in the City and at the Confederation of British Industry.

The first amendment Parliament rejected last week was designed to oblige the US authorities to provide evidence in support of an extradition request, as we must do to them.

The second was to write in a requirement that, unless there were exceptional reasons, the court could not extradite to another country over an allegation of a criminal act that took place partly in this country.

This is not revolutionary. This principle used to govern all extradition relations within Europe, and is still applied by almost every other European state today.

In Parliament last week, attempts were made to discover the Government's reasons for opposing the two amendments. Home Office Minister Joan Ryan was, literally, incoherent, to the astonishment of observing journalists.

In the Commons, John Reid thuggishly accused the Conservatives of helping paedophiles.

Ludicrous as this was, when the amendment went back to the House of Lords for the last time, the Conservatives, visibly sheepish, caved in, having previously supported the changes. The Liberal Democrats held firm, but the Government won.

Mr Reid held out one hope, however. The Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, was going to agree some guidelines with his American counterpart about where transnational cases should be tried - the very same Lord Goldsmith whose own reservations about the legality of the Iraq war evaporated when he went to Washington, shortly before David Blunkett, in the historic month of March 2003.

We all know we have subordinated our foreign policy to the Americans. We have also now subcontracted an important part of our system of justice to them as well. No free nation should behave like this.

Important link, if you want to know how it will be when they will put in place military and all polices states, during the (jour J) martial law. You will see how everything is ready. The guide is being distributed in multi-media formats to each State. For more informations, take time to see by yourself. May be, it will help you during the hard time's coming. If you don't know your ennemy, you would be make some fatals errors

Maria

Road and Highway Deployment Planners and Operators

Recent world events have required a greater use of U. S. based military assets. The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), other government agencies, and commercial vendors have responded to this challenge by moving materiel and personnel rapidly and safely to meet military needs, contributing significantly to the success of military operations worldwide.

This rapidly changing environment has created new and unanticipated challenges for effective military deployment, particularly in coordination between Federal, State, local, and military planners and operators during domestic military deployments. To meet these challenges, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and, on behalf of the DoD, the Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command (SDDC) worked together to create a primer on military deployment practices for State and local agencies. It is hoped these agencies will find this guide particularly informative. The guide offers useful checklists, guidance, and recommendations for coordination among agencies and organizations before, during, and after deployments.

We realize there is no \"one size fits all\" solution to coordinating highway and road movements. This guide, based upon recent lessons learned, is meant to provide information for planners and operators at all levels, to assist those who are less familiar with this important aspect of supporting national defense, and to improve the planning and operations capabilities of those new to deploying forces on roads and highways.

The guide is being distributed in multi-media formats to each State; Puerto Rico; Washington, DC; and key military deployment agencies. It is also available electronically at the FHWA (http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/opssecurity) and SDDCTEA (http://www.tea.army.mil) websites. As always, we welcome your comments, which can be directed to the FHWA Emergency Coordinator at 202-366-4628 or the SDDCTEA Highways for National Defense Coordinators at 757-599-1117.

It's a well-known dirty trick in the halls of government: If you want to pass unpopular legislation that you know won't stand up to scrutiny, just wait until the public isn't looking. That's precisely what the White House did Dec. 13, 2003, the day American troops captured Saddam Hussein. President Bush celebrated the occasion by privately signing into law the Intelligence Authorization Act—a controversial expansion of the PATRIOT Act that included items culled from the "Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003," a draft proposal that had been shelved due to a public outcry after being leaked. Specifically, the IAA allows the government to obtain an individual's financial records without a court order.

The law also makes it illegal for institutions to inform anyone that the government has requested those records, or that information has been shared with the authorities. The law also broadens the definition of "financial institution" to include insurance companies, travel and real estate agencies, stockbrokers, the U.S. Postal Service, jewelry stores, casinos, airlines, car dealerships, and any other business "whose cash transactions have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax or regulatory matters." In one fell swoop, this act has decimated our rights to privacy, due process, and freedom of speech.